Quote: Original post by frob
I have heard rumblings from On High about some possible ways to use GPL code in commercially released games. Simply put, there are some ways a game studio can distribute a console game under the terms of the GPL, release their source code, and not hinder their ability to make a profit. Just like the razors, the program is free, the content is not. If Joe Blow makes his own mods to the game, we get more sales. If we don't need to pay $50,000+ for the commercial libraries but can use the free ones instead, we can afford to lose several thousand sales because of the decision.

Careful there. The current draft of the latest version of the GPL states:

Quote:
For example, Corresponding Source includes any scripts used to control those activities, interface definition files associated with the program source files, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by complex data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other
parts of the work.

In other words, if your open-sourced engine is at all designed to specifically support certain aspects of your game content, you may well have to release that content along with your open-sourced engine.

In no way does that read like you have to make your content(art, sound, maps, etc) available.

Content isn't just arts, maps, and sound. It's also game, level, and AI scripting. If certain features of your scripts are specifically expected and required by the game (which is the norm), they sure seem to fall under that definition to me.

For that matter, art is probably fair game too. Suppose your engine has been tweaked to work perfectly, specifically with the walkcycle that your artists came up with for your main character. To me, that sure sounds like you'd have to release that character, too. Likewise with sounds, if the game is designed to trigger an effect at a certain time position which corresponds with a particular feature of the sound effect.

Uh, no. That's the most laughable interpretation of the GPL I've ever read. The day someone tries to fight a developer for access to all their content with that interpretation is the day GPL dies.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
Uh, no. That's the most laughable interpretation of the GPL I've ever read. The day someone tries to fight a developer for access to all their content with that interpretation is the day GPL dies.

Right. Did you have any actual rebuttal, or just that strawman thing?

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Careful there. The current draft of the latest version of the GPL states:

As I said, it is rumblings from On High.

I wouldn't do it without a lot of good legal advice from people who know and understand both the GPL and IP law for every place where distributing the stuff.


More fitting around here is this advice instead: Write a game, not an engine.

There are many good F/OSS engines out there for RPG and RTS games. Don't spend the time changing the engine, only change your own code that works with the engine.

It is fairly easy to use an engine that takes a set of scripts, maps, images, and sound as input and turns them into a playable game. Since it makes no difference to your scripts, maps, images and sound if they use GPLScriptGamePlayer2.3.4 or GPLScriptGamePlayer2.3.9, and you aren't linking against them or otherwise incorporating it, you can keep your copyright control over your own assets.



The basics of the different licenses are easy to understand and follow, especially if you are smart enough to know how to program. If you don't like the terms of the license (GPS's viral nature, The MIT/BSD/ETC ability to close off works, non-commercial use restrictions, etc.) then don't use the code. If you can deal with them, use them!

Quote: Original post by frob

Quote: Original post by will75
Probably the rest of our industry would be doomed too, because it would be impossible for any company to compete with top class products that are available for free. At first it could look like a great gift to humanity to release the results of years of research for free, but the problem is that "no more money" = "no more research" = "no more evolution" for the kind of products we make.

This is a tired old argument.


"no more money" is false

You don't even know what kind of software the company I'm working for produces, so how can you say that? (I'm posting in this forum because I'd like to start my own indie game company, but I'm employed in a totally different field). The truth is that the success of our products is in the algorithms and the algorithms are easily understood from the code, so the code is not something we would give away. Those algorithm are the result of ten years of research, no one in the OSS world or even in the academic world was ever able to accomplish the same results and that's because reaching those results costs time and money. Other companies managed to get similar results (again with research that costed time and money), so there are similar commercial products, there is competition and a market for those products.
Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but my company is doing quite well and there's no evidence that an open source model would make things better, so why should we put our salary and the job we love at risk?

Quote: Original post by Sneftel
Right. Did you have any actual rebuttal, or just that strawman thing?

There's nothing to rebut. It's an ignorant interpretation. For a tiny bit more clarity try including the first part of the exact paragraph you took your snippet from.

Quote: "The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, except its System Libraries, and except general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work."

and then the part you quoted:

Quote: "For example, Corresponding Source includes scripts used to control those activities, interface definition files associated with the program source files, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by complex data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work."

"those activities" referring(to me) the aforementioned "generate, install, and (for an executable work) run"

I think the GPL is a turd myself, and sure could stand some clarification in many aspects, but assuming it forces you to release your assets too is just stupid. GPL is often quoted as a commercial compatible license. If someone made a commercial project with a GPL engine and had to release all the assets to it, it would cease to be a commercial project. Why buy if it the license forces them to release the content as well? The answer is, it doesn't. It applies to source code. A huge license document referring specifically to source code(and clearly defining source code) and you take some poorly mentioned reference to 'script' to mean all your assets? I interpret scripts as build/install scripts, given the context of the previous part of that same paragraph. Whether thats correct or not who knows, they need to clarify. I don't even care if by some stroke of retardedness it does actually cover assets too, as I avoid the pos at all costs.

A game won't practically run without its content, and you're required give everything necessary to make it run.

Quote: Original post by will75

Quote: Original post by frob

Quote: Original post by will75
Probably the rest of our industry would be doomed too

This is a tired old argument.

"no more money" is false

You don't even know what kind of software the company I'm working for produces, so how can you say that?

You made a general statement about the industry, he addressed that, not the current specific circumstances of your company in particular. Any specific company may be hurt by a change in the business climate becuase thier business model can't adapt but that doesn't mean the whole industry is doomed.